Lack of pleadings cannot be raised for first time in revision.

1. Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.267 of 1992 on the file of Rent Controller, Coimbatore, is the revision petitioner.

2. Parties herein will be referred to as landlord and tenant for the sake of convenience.

3. Tenant in this case is a Nationalised Bank. Schedule premises was taken by the Institution for the purpose of residence of its Manager

4. Theentire building consists of ground floor and three other floors. The ground floor is occupied by the tenant, where it is having its Branch Office. The schedule premises is also let out to the tenant under separate rental arrangement for being used as residential quarters of its Manager. Landlord alleged that marriage of his grown up son was fixed in 1990 and this fact was informed to the tenant. An additional space was required by the landlord and the tenant was asked to vacate from the scheduled premises. There is no favourable response and the landlord issued a registered notice on 30.7.1991, asking the tenant to vacate the premises. In that notice, the tenant was informed that the marriage is also fixed and they are in urgent need of additional space. Another notice was issued on 5. 1992, asking the tenant to vacate the premises, for which also, there is no reply. The tenant, without referring to the earlier correspondence, wanted the lease to continue, for which the landlord sent a reply with a copy to Head Office and Regional Office, claiming possession of the schedule premises.

5. In the counter statement filed by the tenant, the bona fides of the claim was disputed. According to them, the landlord was not satisfied with the rent paid by the Bank and when he claimed exorbitant rent which was refused to be paid by tenant, this eviction petition is filed. They also alleged that the landlord is in possession of other buildings within the city of Coimbatore and therefore, the claim is without any bona fides.

6. On the basis of above pleadings, parties went on trial. Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked on the side of the landlord and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked on the side of the tenant. Oral evidence consists of P.W.-1, husband of the landlady and R.W.-1, the Branch Manager. After evaluating the evidence, the Rent Controller held that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and the tenant was directed to surrender vacant possession within 2 months.

7. Tenant preferred R.C.A.No.81 of 1996 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The Appellate Authority after reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the eviction order of the Rent Controller. Appellate Authority also gave 2 months time to surrender vacant possession.

8. Theconcurrent findings of the Authorities below are challenged in this revision.

9. Since caveat was entered by the respondent, I heard the revision itself at the stage of admission.

10. Both the courts below have held that schedule premises is required for the bona fide own use for landlords son and the requirement of additional accommodation is genuine. It was also held by the courts below that landlords son is not in possession of any other residential building and he is depending only on landlady to provide for accommodation. The courts below have also found that landladys son has got recently married and the schedule premises is suitable for their residence. Even before marriage, the demand was made and after marriage also, this fact was informed, there is no reply to any of these notice.

11. Courts below have found that the claim of the landlady is bona fide and landlords son requires the schedule premises for their residence. Since the landlady is in occupation of a portion of the entire structure, eviction petition was filed for own occupation as additional accommodation. An argument was taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have got other buildings within the city of Coimbatore and they are disqualified from getting possession. The finding of the courts below is that the landladys son is not in possession